Posted by the0nlyis on 8/26/2015 5:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kevodaphenom on 8/26/2015 4:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by the0nlyis on 8/26/2015 3:15:00 PM (view original):
Honestly my bigges thing for recruit generation would be getting rid of the absolutely unrealistic players with 1 speed or 6 athleticism or 7 def.  These guys aren't collegiate athletes, or even real athletes.  The rating system should be clearly defined such us the rating system is rating off collegiate play, so a 98 LP is very rare and elite, but in the nba it would maybe be a 86 or something but for D1 collegiate play its some of the best offense.  LIkewise while their should be bad players there should be very few sub 10 ath/def players I can see the occasional 12 ath 80 speed guys, as I have friends I play basketball with that fit that stereotype, they can sure as hell run striaght line speed, but are otherwise pretty uncordinated.  I'd also like to see ath/def not as correlated, i think it is some of the 2 ratings that do correlate a lot in real life, but I think there should be more exceptions where you can have high ath players without being great defenders, or high def ratings but low on ath.

Going back to recruit generation and under the assumption the in game engine is not changed, I really want the players through D1-3 more "real" the guy who won't hit 30 def or 40 ath should not be going D1 even with 99 per/99 bh/99pas I'd still be lead to believe they will not be able to be successful at high end D1 and should not be ranked as the #76 PG or something like that, I could see unranked and then sign with a high D2 or really bad D1.  Same with the big man of 25 ath 30 def but 99 reb/sb/lp I do not believe under the current game engine that player is really ranked as the #49 C.  Yes rankings should not be 100% accurate, as they are not in real life, but they should be believable.

Some other big things I want to hit on, if a major recruiting change is in store I'd like to bring to the attention that in real life any sane person does not gain 40 ******* athleticism points in 4 years unless they are doing some major doping even then.  Your telling me the majority of collegiate athletes are doping to a level their athleticism is going from 30 to 75.  If a major recruiting change is in place I'd like to see more realistic changes, this would honestly be the biggest change as ath should really never get much better unless we are talking strength.  I could still believe massive defensive increases as that makes sense, as well as speed.  Another big thing is IQ, IQ should be more like how ratings work, the should have a starting letter grade and a potential similar to FT rating is done.  I think their should be a slight correlation to HS GPA as well, but barely noticeable maybe something like 2 players 1 with 3.8 GPA and the other is 2.2 and they both start C- blue IQ then maybe the 3.8 GPA ends with A compared to the 2.2 guy with a B/B+.  As well as I think IQ should be able to be higher for incoming freshmen I think it makes the game value upperclassmen too much which is a reverse trend of where at least upper D1 basketball is going.  I think placing too much value on IQ/upperclassmen makes class structure a big thing when it really isn't, the only time I can think of it being a factor at least in big D1 is when florida had a bunch of seniors 2 seasons ago, but teams don't really go through cycles of elite play and non elite play based off class stucture, yes it does make a factor for a lot of teams, like I know OSU had a down year after their NC run in 07(i believe 08 was NIT) and florida struggled in 13.  But it should not be as rigid as HD where if you have no upper classmen you cannot compete even if your players are going to be very good.  I still think superclasses should be better than a more balanced class, but i dont think the super classes should have a supreme advantage as well as not also totally sucking when they are only underclassmen especially if they are talented.

You have very optimistic changes, but honestly if they implemented the changes you are suggesting i probably wouldnt play anymore. I think you're focusing too much on making the game too hand in hand with real life. From what i get from your suggestions, athleticism and speed wouldnt grow at all? And perimeter, low post would barely grow because in actuality, players in real life dont get drastically better though 4 years? Sounds like the making for a boring game with a "what you recruit, is what you get" philosophy.

I'm not saying they shouldn't grow at all I just think they currently grow too much, we should rarely see massive ath growth.  I could see relatively high speed growth its completely realistic.  Low Post can grow a huge amount same with Per, however I think the 13->100 are absurd, the starting per should be much higher to compensate.  You see plenty of players add and improve their LP game as well as a lot of big men are able to add a stretch game as well.  I'm mainly only wanting ath/spd specifically ath toned down in the growth it gets, and bumping the starting ratings up instead so you recruit a 50 ath who grows to 60 instead of recruiting 20 ath and it grows to 55.  I still believe LP could keep the tremoundous growth you see and PER shooting to an extent as well.  It's really not an insane change as you make it out too be.

While limiting growth may make it more realistic, unless there are significant changes to the game engine, it is a horrible change. By removing the potential for growth in key ratings, how do teams improve their prestige? They can't compete with higher prestige teams for elite recruits, and if you remove the players who can go from 50>85 in ATH, how do they compete?

I'm going to make another pitch here for naming a team captain. Pinning a captains badge on results in a WE bump for the player, say 10 extra points per season at the beginning of the year, and it affects the IQ of the other players when the captain is on the floor. Amount of IQ bump would depend on the IQ and WE of the captain. The senior with A IQs and an already high work ethic brings everyone up to that level when they're on the floor with him. A low WE freshman has little to no effect.

I think this change would add fun, realism, and a new series of strategic choices in how a team is managed.

There is a good reason why Seble ignores 90% of the dumb ideas users come up with in these forums.

The key is listening to the smart 10%

Posted by mullycj on 8/27/2015 10:38:00 AM (view original):
There is a good reason why Seble ignores 90% of the dumb ideas users come up with in these forums.

The key is listening to the smart 10%

thank you

One word: holograms

I think another thing is to be able to put overall rating into the > < limits when searching for recruits would be much nicer recruiting D2 and D1 if I could search with a overall rating limit

Posted by the0nlyis on 8/27/2015 1:14:00 PM (view original):
I think another thing is to be able to put overall rating into the > < limits when searching for recruits would be much nicer recruiting D2 and D1 if I could search with a overall rating limit

This would be nice in D2 when searching for D1 pulldowns.

update:

Software development takes time, especially for major changes like this recruiting update. The worst thing we could do is rush something out that's buggy. We'll be communicating in the forums throughout this process, so it's not like we'll be going silent until it's ready for release. As part of testing, we will have a beta world where we ask users to try it out firsthand before we release it to the real game.

beta world seems really nice to test things out, hopefully they do not keep silent.

bump, hopefully more news on this coming soon!

Posted by davidcrone on 8/26/2015 1:47:00 PM (view original):
I definitely think recruiting could be better.

I'm sure a lot of other people playing this game have played other sports sims, and I think many of them have recruiting features that could be cool to implement. Basically, I think recruited players should have motivations aside from simply how much money is spent recruiting them. Things like offering the right major, academic rep, offensive and defensive sets used, success of players at their position, etc. Could definitely be used as huge factors in recruiting. Spending money on them should obviously be important, but other factors could be weighed in heavily as well.

I also don't love how FSS works. Bluntly, it's WAY TOO ACCURATE. It would be really cool if you're scouting was more accurate on local players than players across the country. Maybe there could be multiple services rating players, maybe those services could be different than one another, or flat out wrong. I think it would be nice to be able to review game film on a number of players as opposed to just spending higher amounts on scouting trips.

It would also be interesting to see more in-season recruiting implemented.

But, I would personally like to see the game engine tweaked over recruiting tweaks. I think, and I know many agree, that ATH/DEF are just too overpowered. And, as others agree as well, I think ratings overall should be scaled back. A guy having a 100 in anything should be incredibly rare.

Hey Crone - a couple thoughts on your post - I agree that there could be more considerations such as the several that you list.    But to me the most glaring and obvious is offensive and defensive sets.    To a kid wondering where he will fit in the best and have a chance to play, it seems to me it would be a huge advantage to the school that ran the same offense and/or defense.

As far as FSS goes, I agree and disagree.     Yes, it is unrealistically accurate.    To know that no matter what, BIlly Bob's rebounding will top out at 51st to 57th percentile of all college kids - is kind of silly.    But it is an unrealistic thing I think we need as a game mechanic, otherwise the game is too random.   Having less ability to foresee the end skills of these players would be less fun.     We still do have the suspense of seeing how high the high/highs go.

The main thing I would like to see is more clear messages.   Even after doing this for a while I still  have to keep a 'cheat sheet' of what means low/high, what means high/high, and so on.    Another cheat sheet for when no means no, or no means maybe  . . . that's the part that makes me crazy.

And yes with a scouting report it seems like we should be able to ask the scout to make sure he pays attention to one item - "hey go scout Billy, I am especially curious about his defensive skills."     Maybe a box we can use once per cycle like a CV.